Wasn't it SBC that invented this? I'm pretty sure they've got the patent. I heard they were going to start demanding licensing for anyone using communication devices using electricity.
" Rambus asks for, what, a 3% royalty on the DRAM which is about $3 for every 512MB. And that cost will be passed right along to me. Sounds good!" ----
Completely wrong. $3 isn't much you think until you multiply $3 times the millions of units of RAM being sold.
If you are asking for back compensation, then the corps such as Micron will need to make up royalties on all those millions of units by passing that onto the much smaller amount of units being sold right now. That will cut into their sales, so they will have to raise prices even more to compensate.
Of course no big corp is going to put up with that, so they will fight it in court. That means win or lose, the corp is going to being passing those legal costs down to consumers and probably pre-emptively before they even end up in court.
So no, you aren't looking at $3. You are looking at $3 royalties + $??? for back royalties you are helping the corp make up for + $??? for legal fees + $??? for the extra money the corp needs to research new non-infringing RAM technology + $??? for administrative overhead = A very significant increase in the cost of memory.
That does not even take into account the reduction in competition this will cause. And we all here know that lack of competition equals lack of innovation and more expensive technology.
Wonderful, someone has used satelite imaging to show that they have seen objects they can't identify. Kind of like how the Hubble gave us a bunch of unidentifiable objects in space, now this satelite gives us UFO's from back home. They didn't need this kind of a project. I could have sent them some of my pictures. I, Mr Cant Take A Good Picture, has several pictures with UFO's.
Yet another case where the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are being used to impede legitimate competition, similar to the Lexmark
case. Not, I think, what Congress had in mind when enacting the DMCA.
Above from email...
This is exactly what DMCA was bought from congress for. It allows big pre-existing corp's to kill any and or all competition. They can mostly get by just with the extra justification to file a lawsuit, as the expensive litigation will harm competitors and discourage new competitors from entering the market, whether the big brother corp wins or not.
The threat of expensive litigation will not only discourage others from entering the market, but discourage investors from backing those companies, thereby leading to new competiting companies from entering the market.
Ultimately, it is the consumer, or in better terms "the American citizen" who is harmed. After such lawsuits the consumer will have fewer choices, worse choices, and higher prices. This is a law that at it's root core justifies monopolies and hinders competition to everyone's detriment.
And this is exactly what DMCA is all about. That is what the companies who bought it were looking for exactly...to be saved, no matter what the market conditions, no matter what consumers want, no matter what is reasonable, they will have their status quo as is forever. In 50 years when some of us or our kids are running the government then they'll see how terrible these laws are and will vote these restrictions away.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't it SBC that invented this? I'm pretty sure they've got the patent. I heard they were going to start demanding licensing for anyone using communication devices using electricity.
" Rambus asks for, what, a 3% royalty on the DRAM which is about $3 for every 512MB. And that cost will be passed right along to me. Sounds good!"
----
Completely wrong. $3 isn't much you think until you multiply $3 times the millions of units of RAM being sold.
If you are asking for back compensation, then the corps such as Micron will need to make up royalties on all those millions of units by passing that onto the much smaller amount of units being sold right now. That will cut into their sales, so they will have to raise prices even more to compensate.
Of course no big corp is going to put up with that, so they will fight it in court. That means win or lose, the corp is going to being passing those legal costs down to consumers and probably pre-emptively before they even end up in court.
So no, you aren't looking at $3. You are looking at $3 royalties + $??? for back royalties you are helping the corp make up for + $??? for legal fees + $??? for the extra money the corp needs to research new non-infringing RAM technology + $??? for administrative overhead = A very significant increase in the cost of memory.
That does not even take into account the reduction in competition this will cause. And we all here know that lack of competition equals lack of innovation and more expensive technology.
Wonderful, someone has used satelite imaging to show that they have seen objects they can't identify. Kind of like how the Hubble gave us a bunch of unidentifiable objects in space, now this satelite gives us UFO's from back home. They didn't need this kind of a project. I could have sent them some of my pictures. I, Mr Cant Take A Good Picture, has several pictures with UFO's.
Yet another case where the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are being used to impede legitimate competition, similar to the Lexmark case. Not, I think, what Congress had in mind when enacting the DMCA. Above from email... This is exactly what DMCA was bought from congress for. It allows big pre-existing corp's to kill any and or all competition. They can mostly get by just with the extra justification to file a lawsuit, as the expensive litigation will harm competitors and discourage new competitors from entering the market, whether the big brother corp wins or not. The threat of expensive litigation will not only discourage others from entering the market, but discourage investors from backing those companies, thereby leading to new competiting companies from entering the market. Ultimately, it is the consumer, or in better terms "the American citizen" who is harmed. After such lawsuits the consumer will have fewer choices, worse choices, and higher prices. This is a law that at it's root core justifies monopolies and hinders competition to everyone's detriment. And this is exactly what DMCA is all about. That is what the companies who bought it were looking for exactly...to be saved, no matter what the market conditions, no matter what consumers want, no matter what is reasonable, they will have their status quo as is forever. In 50 years when some of us or our kids are running the government then they'll see how terrible these laws are and will vote these restrictions away.